Political attitudes about self-reliance can be summarized as one of four.
Position One can be summarized as "Every man for himself," or, of course, every woman for herself. We all take care of those we care about, but no one should be asked to provide for others who are capable of providing for themselves.
Position Two can be summarized as "Every person must provide for himself or herself, and contribute to the general welfare."
Position Three can be summarized as "Every person must care for one another," and Position Four can be summarized as "Society must take care of me."
In reasoned political debate, Conservatives advocate Position Two, and Liberals advocate Position Three, and both sides recognize that the differences are fairly subtle. In the hyperpartisan political debate which has dominated the last twenty years, Conservatives advocate Position Two, but accuse Liberals of advocating Position Four, while Liberals advocate Position Three, but accuse Conservatives of advocating Position One. What changes first with hyperpartisanship, in other words, is not what is advocated by either side, but the evaporation of trust based on the assumption of good will.
Position one can be described as the "strong" position—that we much each take care of ourselves—and position four as the "weak" position. In saying this, we can see that these four categories represent not a single spectrum of selfishness to generosity, but rather, two spectrums layered one over another, a spectrum of strength to weakness and a spectrum of selfishness to generosity.
Selfishness-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Generosity
Strength---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Weakness
If we divide each spectrum into two ends, then we have the four positions. Perhaps it is worth a sentence to note that there are shades of belief along each spectrum, not fully articulated here.
Conservatives see themselves as advocating strength, and deny that they are advocating selfishness, although they are. Liberals see themselves as generous, and deny that they are fostering and engendering weakness, although they are. With the passage of time in a hyperpartisan atmosphere, people become defensive, and once they become defensive they begin to define themselves by the way that others see them. Conservatives, forced to defend themselves against the charge of selfishness, begin to make excuses for selfishness, and eventually to embrace selfishness. Liberals, forced to defend themselves against the charge of fostering weakness, begin to make excuses for the infantilization of the public, and eventually find themselves pandering to the weak.
What can be done about it?
What can be done about it is this: to understand that strength and generosity are natural partners, and that weakness and selfishness are natural friends. Politics divides us from our natural roles. Let the weak be selfish; let the strong be generous. I don’t advocate the tolerance of weakness, but I don’t advocate the tolerance of greed, either.